Push takes aim…
and blows his chest open.
Who volunteers to dig this guy’s grave?
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Push takes aim…
and blows his chest open.
Who volunteers to dig this guys grave?[/quote]
Leave him to the vultures.
His performance does not warrant a warriors funeral.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Push, I think the puddy tat is gone.
I forget…are you the godless pagan and I the bible butcher, or vice verse?[/quote]now who would have ever dreamed that you two would be allies against me. Wadda shock. Another outrageous accusation where the accuser runs away when a demonstration of his accusation is demanded. Like I said, you have no testimony and you’re a coward.
A simple question about loving your country after you accuse me of plagiarism and this is what we get? A pagan with the name of Jesus on his lips is a thousand times more useful to Satan than a Bill Maher or Christopher Hitchens.
To the OP. I read up a bit here and there now, but do not keep on top of all the latest in the relevant scientific fields like I once did. The reason is basically twofold. One, nothing’s really changed. The same incestuous presuppositional biases exist now that always have and always will. You did it yourself when starting this thread.
You assumed their proposed age for the earth and universe thereby believing that that framework was the only possibility. There is not one shred of “proof” for ANY of the theories advanced today to escape responsibility to the one true and living God.
No, I am not the person to elaborate on that because as I’ve said I don’t really keep up any more because I have other things to do. Number two and more importantly is that I do not believe that your problem is an intellectual one. It is utterly unbiblical to suppose that the only thing lacking in unbelievers is their failure to accept a list of propositions and that if presented with a sufficiently persuasive argument built on their own unbelieving foundation they will believe.
It’s that they are dead in sin and CANNOT believe until raised from that state by Christ Himself. The unbeliever’s problem is sin which makes it an ethical and not an intellectual issue. Hence my chiding of our friend on the previous page.
The bottom line is when I want to know something I go to the source and look it up. You won’t find me starting a thread titled “Can an atheist/agnostic tell me why there is radiocarbon in diamonds?”. That would be bating them to fight and probably wouldn’t get me the best answer if that’s what I was really after. Now if I wanted to debate then that’s the thread I would start.
Number two is alluded to above. I believe that a philosophical defense of the historic gospel and hence historic Christianity, which cannot coexist with an old earth, is the far superior and biblical approach. The alleged scientific method itself falls to the ground unless the God I worship is first pre-assumed, which He is by everybody, including His most rabid enemies. This is because they are created in His image and see His signature in their mirror everyday.
Stuff like this Indian discussion is interesting and having it is fine, but it ultimately proves or disproves absolutely nothing.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well then, your curiosity should by now be satisfied.
Old earth creationist Christians believe they migrated to the western hemisphere along a timetable that you suggested.
Young earth creationist Christians believe they migrated after the Great Flood and after the dipsersion at Babel.
You obviously believe in the infallibility of dating methods, in this instance carbon-14. Young earth creationists would point out that dating methods are tricky little bastards and cannot be relied on to the degree that they often are. You are free to google carbon-14 for more details. Thus, your hypothetical migration timetable could actually be in error and your whole premise in this case of mocking Christianity would not be built on solid ground, would it, Mr. Myriad-of-Ass-Backwards-Problems-in-the-Bible?
I gave you a solution on the last page so now what’s the problem?[/quote]
Carbon dating methods suck if you are using BP years, but become far more reliable when you use a calibration curve to calibrate your numbers. Calibration curves are created by comparing radiocarbon dates to other more accepted methods such as tree rings and sediment cores. Currently, cabon dating has advanced to a point where we can very accurately date back 26,000 years with a +/-120 years margin of error. Even if it were a +/-500 year margin of error, it would be accurate enough for this topic.
So you’re saying Old Creationists believe it would happen along the widely accepted timeline, but it would have logically happened anachronistically to their beliefs.
Young Creationists would argue against a pretty well accepted, and much improved over the last decade, form of dating. They have a better argument, but their whole belief is based off of a flawed belief of the earth’s age. We can use more than Carbon dating to confirm the earth is beyond 6,000 years old.
As for the “Christians” that don’t believe in an event in the Bible expressed in no uncertain terms, they shouldn’t be considered real Christians as they’re doubting the word of their god. They could try to say that it was a metaphor, but the Bible is almost completely based off of this cleansing and re-population of the earth as a literal event. If you claim it was figurative, then shouldn’t the rest just be the same, reducing your belief in the bible to a book of parables instead of the word of God?
Here we go again
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:<<< It would be interresting if you could provide a source or preferably a link, as a history
student I would enjoy reading other hypothesis on the subject.
[/quote]Even though we disagree on everything, from what I’ve observed you sure are a polite and decent feller I gotta say lol.
[/quote]
Well thank you tiribulus.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
There are other models that don’t demand the 30,000 years.
There really is no question of how native Americans got here, just when. There are no hard and fast absolutes and certainly no “proof.” Anything that happened in ancient, prehistoric times are things that are subject to assumptions and must look for a theory in which to reside.[/quote]
It would be interresting if you could provide a source or preferably a link, as a history
student I would enjoy reading other hypothesis on the subject.
[/quote]
Will get back to you. It’s late. Don’t let me forget.[/quote]
Okay.
You can just give me a name on the historian/arceologist who are responsible for the hypothesis that disagrees with the consensus. Or you can if you are able give me the name on the hypothesis. Either way I can google it myself and it would probably pop up something about it.
@ Pushharder…What’s with your short temper, oh ye man of god? You did imply that that Native Indians came to North America in the 1500-1600’s…"As a matter of fact during the most recent ice age, known as the Little Ice Age (1500’s and 1600’s) it is entirely likely that parts of the Bering Strait were entirely frozen over and humans could’ve easily walked from Asia to North America.
Even in modern times it has iced over from time to time." So it appears my comprehension is just fine…You did imply that…looks like you need to remember what you wrote…if you don’t want to answer the question, that’s fine, just don’t throw out random information and then act like you don’t remember when someone questions it.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:<<< It would be interresting if you could provide a source or preferably a link, as a history
student I would enjoy reading other hypothesis on the subject.
[/quote]Even though we disagree on everything, from what I’ve observed you sure are a polite and decent feller I gotta say lol.
[/quote]
Well thank you tiribulus. [/quote]
Are you a Christian too?
Problem with a “origin of native americans” hypothesis that are based on the little ice age is that the little ice age where after columbus found america.
Any “origin of native americans” hypothesis that can work have to take this things into consideration:
-
It must take into account that the native americans must have been separeted from the asian-siberian population long enough to develop a different culture, looks and language.
-
It must take into account that the native americans must have had enough time to create several different
cultures and languages. ( I think the where something like 100+ different languages ) -
It must have happened before the europeens discovered America( obviously )
-
It must have happened in a time when it was possible to journey from asia to America.
Now I must admit that I am not a lingvist, antropolog and therefor dont know what kind of timetable is
needed for the native americans to create their own language and culture, but would guess it would take
many thousands of years atleast. Either way the theory that says they arrived for 30,000 years ago does atleast acomplish to give them a timetable to develop different languages and different cultures.
That’s not what Push was sayin folks. =] Even I’ll give him more credit than that. And florelius is welcome
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:<<< It would be interresting if you could provide a source or preferably a link, as a history
student I would enjoy reading other hypothesis on the subject.
[/quote]Even though we disagree on everything, from what I’ve observed you sure are a polite and decent feller I gotta say lol.
[/quote]
Well thank you tiribulus. [/quote]
Are you a Christian too?[/quote]
Nope I am a agnostic atheist( I guess thats the correct term )
Do it yourself, you should enlighten us a little on your beliefs as you’ve left them either intentionally vague or terribly stupid. I wouldn’t have a problem with this but you keep pushing it so why not?
Because I kinda took it that way too, I just didn’t want to believe it was a serious suggestion.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Here you go, florelius:
[/quote]
Okay thanks.
I will read them carefully and that can take some time, but I will try to make up my mind about them in the shortest amount of time possible.
[quote]Experiment1 wrote:
Because the land bridge disappeared at the end of the last Ice Age, which ended before the Bible even says the world existed.
Then there’s logic. For example, Noah knew about agriculture and tilling soil, it would mean he came from somewhere after the neolithic age began, which came about at the end of the last Ice Age. After the ice bridge to the Americas would have melted.
Another thing, what about Kangaroos?[/quote]
This particular timeline has always made me question the flood story too.
"The timing of this event would have be after the Tower of Babel when Noah?s descendants were scattered across the globe to repopulate the earth. Ussher places the Tower of Babel at about 2242 BC, which is about a hundred years or so after the Flood.
For the land beneath the Bering Strait to be exposed, the ocean level would have to be lower. The Ice Age that followed the Flood would be the perfect mechanism to remove water from the ocean and deposit it on land, thus reducing the ocean level. The Ice Age peaked about 500 years after the Flood, or about 400 years after Babel."
( taken from the second link push posted )
The premise for the “after babel” hypothesis, is that the land bridge beetwen Asia and Alaska also know as
Beringia existed 400-500 years after 2242 BC. The problem with this premise is that it goes against the more
mainstream “ice age” timetable, as seen in the two quotes from wikipedia provided under. ( I know Wikipedia, isnt in academical circles considered a tremendous source, but I guess its as good as a internett page who use
bible passages as “evidence” for their hypothesis. )
“Currently, the earth is in an interglacial period, which marked the beginning of the Holocene epoch. The current interglacial began between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago, which caused the ice sheets from the last glacial period to begin to disappear. Remnants of these last glaciers, now occupying about 10% of the world’s land surface, still exist in Greenland and Antarctica. Global warming has exacerbated the retreat of these glaciers.[3]”
( taken from wikipedia article: Ice Age - Wikipedia )
[3]
“The rise and fall of global sea levels exposed and submerged the bridging land mass called “Beringia” in several periods of the Pleistocene. The Beringian land bridge is believed to have existed both in the glaciation that occurred before 35,000 Before Present (BP) and during the more recent period 22,000-7,000 years BP. The strait reopened about 15,500 BP[5] and by c. 6000 BP the coastlines had assumed approximately their present configurations.[6]”
( taken from the wikipedia article: Beringia - Wikipedia )
[6]
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html
Now this offcourse creates a problem for the “after babel” hypothesis regarding the arrivel of the native americans i America, but scholars today do actually belive that the third and last migration to America happened with boats acroos the bering strait aprox 3000 BCE. Now this doesnt prove the “after babel” hypothesis, but it shows that it was possible that people could travel to America after the Beringia existed.
“A third and final migration began about 3000 BCE, long after Beringia had disappeared under rising seas, when
a maritime hunting people crossed the Bering Straits in small boats”
( Out of many. 2009. page 5 )
So experiment1, the canoe thing wasnt so far off after all 